No one should ever get into a war of words with someone much smarter than they are, but E. Scott Cracraft's Feb. 13 letter to The Sun continues to puzzle the heck out of me. Why would a man with such a gifted mind be so troubled by those who challenge an existing court ruling?

I'd like to return to 1857 when the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott lawsuit. Scott was a slave whose owner Dr. John Emerson brought him to a "free state." Upon Dr. Emerson's untimely death, Scott sued for his family's (wife and two daughters) freedom. Scott lost his case. Our Supreme Court ruled that by being a slave Scott could not legally sue the government since he was not truly a person but a property. So the question is: Whose vision was blurred in 1857? Was it the Supreme Court that stood steadfast to protect the law or were the folks the miscreants for raising their voices and clamoring for change?

No law should be etched in stone merely because another group of people thought of it. Nor should people be disparaged for pursuing principles and beliefs they espouse. It is vital that American people keep thinking independently.

In the 19th century the Dred Scott ruling caused people to raise their voices loud enough to change America's Black Race from property to citizenship.

In the 20th century Susan Anthony rallied women and men alike to alter a long standing Unites States Federal law not allowing women to vote.

In the 21st century a concern exist on the practice of abortion within Planned Parenthood. It's a dubious practice, in this "land of the free," with some folks seeing images of infancy carnage that won't let them rest. These same folks are also asking what kind of freedom is this and wondering too what kind of country America has become?

Abortion in American politics wouldn't be able to fly under its own banner. Thus it comes to us in subtle guise under the clever name of Planned Parenthood.

Not long ago, while sitting through an orientation for jury duty, I recall the judge explicitly stating: "Should there be an inkling of doubt you cannot rule the defendant guilty." The judge's emphasis on the word doubt lingered with me all the way home. I then began to think at what point, in a nine-month pregnancy, is the fetus considered an infant child? Of course there's no clear answer because medical science has been unable to address this question. It's this unknown that stirs the voices in the fetus vs infancy debate. Voices which are now asking another question: "Shouldn't the court be protecting the fetus in the same way it protects alleged criminals?"

It's surprising that a man of Cracraft's high intellect is so defensive over someone else's rational concerning the Roe v. Wade law. A man of such academic stature should be sharing his own thoughts on why the law should remain as it is rather than discourage a different viewpoint.

Cracraft writes often and well in The Laconia's Daily Sun and oftentimes comes across with ideas well worth contemplating. But why his pen becomes so negative when other people also seek to have their voice heard is something only he can answer.

Finally, I don't fault any women who might have consented to an abortion. The law allows it and surely that decision was made with the best of intentions. What I hope for, however, is a future re-consideration of this law with modest amendments attached.